September 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs
by Benedetta Rossi 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12sep13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12sep13-en.htm NGPC Takes Action on GAC Durban Advice on New gTLDs 12 September 2013 The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 10 September 2013 and, among other things, reached a decision regarding the GAC's <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-e n> further advice on new gTLDs. The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique _Durban_20130717.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1374215119858&api=v2> Durban Communiqué [PDF, 103 KB], issued on 18 July 2013. Applicants submitted responses to the advice on 23 August 2013. At its most recent meeting, the NGPC adopted the Durban Scorecard, available at <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1 -10sep13-en.pdf> Annex 1 [PDF, 119 KB], disposing of all of the GAC's further advice with one exception the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting. The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These include the advice pertaining to protections for IGO names and acronyms; Category 1 Safeguard advice; and Category 2 advice with respect to exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items. The NGPC will next meet on 28.09.2013 and will provide a further update following that meeting. The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing and Durban Advice. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures
by Benedetta Rossi 13 Sep '13

13 Sep '13

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm Consultation on gTLD Delegation and Redelegation User Instructions and Source of Policy and Procedures Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 10 September 2013 Comment Close Date: 1 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 2 October 2013 Reply Close Date: 22 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10sep13-en.htm> Public Comment Announcement <mailto:comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13@icann.org> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13/> View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): A consultation on User Instructions and Source of Policy for Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD). Current Status: Initial public consultation Next Steps: Review comments received Staff Contact: Michelle Cotton <mailto:michelle.cotton@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Consultation%20on%20gTLD%20Delegation%20and%20Redelegation%20User%20Instructions%20and%20Source%20of%20Policy%20and%20Procedures%20public%20comment%20period> Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract ( <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective: C.2.6 Transparency and Accountability — [No later than 1 October 2013], the Contractor shall develop performance standards, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, develop user instructions including technical requirements for each corresponding IANA function and post via a website. C.2.7 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders – [No later than 1 October 2013], the contractor shall, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.C, develop for each of the IANA functions a process for documenting the source of the policies and procedures and how it will apply the relevant policies and procedures for the corresponding IANA function and post via a website. This consultation involves the operation of the Delegations and Redelegations of Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) described in the IANA functions contract as the following: C.2.9.2.d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) ‑ The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework including specific documentation demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report. Section II: Background: This is one of a series of consultations to establish user instructions and source of policy for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035. Section III: Document and Resource Links: * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13-en.…> Consultation on Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) User Instructions and Source of Policy [PDF, 167 KB] * <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/gtld-drd-ui-10sep13-en.pdf> User Documentation on Delegating and Redelegating Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) [PDF, 295 KB] * Contract SA1301-12-CN-0035 and related documents <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order> Section IV: Additional Information: None _____ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

U.S. official: If the UN keeps trying to regulate the Web, we should consider pulling funding
by Phil Corwin 12 Sep '13

12 Sep '13

FYI-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/12/u-s-official-i… U.S. official: If the UN keeps trying to regulate the Web, we should consider pulling funding By Brian Fung, Updated: September 12, 2013 The United States should consider withdrawing its funding from the International Telecommunications Union if the UN agency keeps trying to assert regulatory authority over the Internet, a U.S. official said Thursday. Ajit Pai, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission, hinted that the intergovernmental body's proposed rules<http://www.zdnet.com/itu-chief-claims-dubai-meeting-success-despite-collaps…> - which critics say gives governments more power to censor the Web - may have put the group's future in jeopardy. "If the organization decides to become an international regulatory authority for the Internet," he said at a Washington conference for gay and lesbian technology advocates, "we will have to ask ourselves whether the United States should remain one of its top two funders." The United States contributes<http://defundtheitu.com/uploads/S11-CL-C-0041.pdf> nearly $11 million a year to the ITU, a figure that accounts for 7.7 percent of the agency's budget. Japan is the only other country to donate as much. Last year, the United States and dozens of other countries walked away from an ITU plan that would have targeted spam and enhanced broadband access in developing countries, largely over a separate provision<http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/9/3747402/countries-propose-greater-itu-inf…> that would have allowed governments to manage their domestic Internets more intensively. Free-speech advocates worried that the rule would have given countries such as Russia and China greater freedom to suppress politically sensitive content. In response, one opposition organization launched a bid to defund the ITU. The North American Network Operators' Group started a White House petition in January, but failed to attract enough co-signers<https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/de-fund-itu/mSJ49QcV> to require a response from the Obama administration. Pai is among the first U.S. officials to publicly sympathize with the idea. The next meeting of the ITU isn't until next year in Busan, South Korea. But that gives anti-ITU activists plenty of time to build support for the movement. (c) The Washington Post Company Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

1 0

Renewed Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting
by Benedetta Rossi 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find below the renewed call for volunteers for the drafting team to devemop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting. Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org Renewed Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on GNSO Metrics & Reporting http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm Date: 6 September 2013 In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Drafting Team (DT) that will develop a charter for a new Working Group (WG). The GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG will be tasked with exploring opportunities with respect to reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. The Drafting Team is expected to submit the proposed Charter to the GNSO Council for approval. What This Team Will Do The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines taking into account the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting, which recommended that such a Working Group should review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers in the sharing of complaint and abuse data that may also further educate Registrants and Internet users in submission of complaints to the appropriate party. Such a Working Group could also investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that may aid in GNSO policy development efforts. How This Team Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this DT will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the Drafting Team will be archived publicly. Drafting Team members are expected to submit Statements of Interest ( <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs> SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The Drafting Team is expected to follow the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf> GNSO Working Group Guidelines. How to Join The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the DT mailing list. The DT will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Uniform ity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> GNSO secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) Background In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports'. The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'. The GNSO in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to better aid the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await any further action regarding Contractual Compliance metrics and reporting until the conclusion of their three-year plan towards the end of 2013. At such time the GNSO Council will consider other actions, if any. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that could better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to be performed to help inform the deliberations of the WG. More information can be found on the <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/uofr> GNSO Metrics & Reporting WG page. Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site should be sent to webmaster [at] gnso.icann.org Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR)
by Benedetta Rossi 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06sep13-en.htm Selection of Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) 6 September 2013 ICANN is pleased to announce that the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Top Level Domain (TLD) Program has completed the selection of the Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR). We received many applications from well-qualified individuals and we thank all the applicants for their interest in the IDN Variant TLD Program. The Integration Panel is a vital component in the implementation of the <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds/draft-lgr-procedure-20ma r13-en.pdf> Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels [PDF, 1.39 MB] (the Procedure), and its success depends on having Integration Panel members with the right skills to perform the substantive work. The Procedure defines a two-pass process for the creation of IDN label generation rules (LGR) for the root zone. These rules are used to determine sets of potential "variants" of a given label that may be afforded specific treatment in the various root zone processes. ICANN published the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-06jun13-en.htm> Call for Subject Matter Experts for IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels on 6 June 2013. In response, ICANN received 22 eligible submissions and utilized the following selection process: 1. ICANN reviewed the candidates' submissions against the predefined criteria. The selection criteria were shared with the candidates and candidates were given the opportunity to provide any additional information in support of their candidature: * The selection criteria for members of the Integration Panel included at least one area of primary expertise in Unicode, Linguistics and Writing Systems, Domain Name System (DNS) and IDNA. * The selection process also took into account secondary experience the candidates had in those same areas of expertise. * In addition, the selection criteria required demonstrable ability and experience to perform systematic and detailed analysis of large data sets and to produce accurate and comprehensive results, have prior work experience, and demonstrated ability to advocate positions and build group consensus. 2. Each selection criterion was assigned a score. The evaluation team ranked each candidate's submission in relation to the selection criteria. The process allowed the evaluation team to identify the candidates who best satisfied the selection criteria. 3. Based on the scores for each of the candidates, the evaluation team arrived at a list of the most suitable candidates. For each area of expertise, the evaluation team reviewed the top candidates and made the final selection based on the aggregate expertise of the panel to ensure that all areas had appropriate representation. Selected panel members are listed below: * Marc Blanchet * Asmus Freytag * Michel Suignard * Nicholas Ostler * Wil Tan Integration Panel members are expected to serve an initial term through June 2014. Responsibilities of the Integration Panel members are stated in the Procedure and the <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-06jun13-en.htm> call for subject matter experts. The decisions by the integration Panel are required to be unanimous. Expert advisors are available to the Integration Panel to aid its deliberations. These advisors aid the Integration Panel by lending their subject matter expertise, based on specific requests from the Panel. Using the same selection criteria as used for Panel members, the following advisor has been selected: * Michael Everson The selected Advisor will serve an initial term through June 2014. Additional advisors may be added at a later time as requested by the Panel and as specified in the Procedure. The Integration Panel will undertake the work through periodic conference calls and face-to-face meetings. The first face-to-face meeting is planned for early October 2013. Initial work includes preparing the maximal set of code points and default whole label variant evaluation rules for the root zone. This will serve as a starting point for the community Generation Panels, the second part in the two-pass process. For more information on the IDN Variant TLD Program, please visit <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds> http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency Comments on Potential Postponement of GNSO Review
by Steve DelBianco 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

We filed BC comments on the EWG today (see below). Thanks to Aparna and Bill Smith for taking the initiative on this issue. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 6:46 PM To: "comments-gnso-review-15jul13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org>" <comments-gnso-review-15jul13(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-gnso-review-15jul13@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency Comments on Potential Postponement of GNSO Review Comments of ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) regarding Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review. As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including the GNSO, be conducted every five years. The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three principal reasons: First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in its key structural documents. Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many businesses. The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete “silo” constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a review process be started sooner rather than later. Thus, the actions of the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the last GNSO review was commenced. Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round. Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006. -- Aparna Sridhar and Bill Smith prepared the draft and it was properly approved by BC membership on 6-Sep-2013 Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

FILED: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG
by Steve DelBianco 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

We filed BC comments on the EWG today (see below and attached). I did make one small edit per David Fares' request; seconded by Marilyn Cade. It's on page 6, giving our position on paying for access for data beyond what is free to the public: (new text in red) Cost recovery for an ARDS model should be split amongst the various groups that benefit from the centralized system. The Registries, for example, could pay a small fee per record as the centralized database is a backup for them. Entities accessing the data could pay a fee for retrieving Gated Access information,which could be done as an upfront cost paid at the time of certification/validation or per request. ICANN could also underwrite the validation/certification costs for Gated Access. The BC believes however, that for domain names use for commercial purposes, as defined and discussed above, basic data elements which identify the registrant should be available to Internet users and consumers without a fee. Additional data elements might require a fee, however these fees should be limited to recovery of actual costs. Thanks to Laura for initial draft and to all who contributed. --Steve From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:46 PM To: "input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>" <input-to-ewg(a)icann.org<mailto:input-to-ewg@icann.org>> Subject: Business Constituency comments on Initial Report from the EWG Attached are comments of ICANN's Business Constituency (BC) regarding the Initial Report from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. Laura Covington prepared the initial draft and several BC members contributed to the comment before it was properly approved by BC membership on 6-Sep-2013 -- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination ICANN Business Constituency

1 0

Re: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois)
by Marilyn Cade 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

I support the need for the fee to be cost recovery. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Fares David <DFares(a)21cf.com> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 07:10:08 To: <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Thanks Steve. I have no objections with the paragraph below. I would suggest that on page 6, if we accept that users should pay a fee for gated access that we should qualify that by saying the fee should be limited to cost recovery. In fact, I question whether gated access shouldn't be part of the cost of doing business for registrars. I would welcome thoughts from others. Thanks for all of your efforts in coordinating these comments. From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:04 AM To: bc-gnso(a)icann.org list Subject: [bc-gnso] LAST CALL: BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) Importance: High This is "Last Call" for members who would object to filing the attached comments by tomorrow's deadline. Since I circulated a draft on Monday, we have seen no objections. But we did see some excellent debate about this paragraph: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights. And the EWG's "Maximum Protected Registration" should only be available to registrants who demonstrate a need for privacy to protect at-risk free-speech uses. Google questioned the idea of per-se restricting donation-seeking domains from using privacy/proxy services. Looks to me like the majority of subsequent comments were in favor of retaining the per-se restriction above. But as a by-product of that discussion, several of you wanted to add a few more offenses to the list of things that privacy/proxy eligible domains would promise not to do. So I've revised that first sentence to read: Eligibility for privacy/proxy protection should only be extended to registrants who promise not to solicit sales, payments, or donations, and promise not to facilitate infringement of intellectual property rights, distribution of malware, phishing, or other fraud. Unless more than 5 members object, I will file these comments by 3pm EST on Friday 6-Sep. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> > Date: Monday, September 2, 2013 11:45 AM To: "bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> list" <bc-gnso(a)icann.org <mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> > Subject: FOR REVIEW: Latest draft of BC comments on Expert Working Group (EWG) for directory services (Whois) As a follow-up to Thursday's BC call, here's a new draft for member review. First thing I did was re-read the EWG report on which we are commenting. (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report…> ) It's also helpful to review FAQs published by the EWG (link <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/faqs%20> ) Second thing I did was review prior BC positions on this, starting with our Jul-2011 "Response to WHOIS Policy Review Team Discussion Paper" (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC_on_WHOIS_Review_Questions.p…> ) where the BC said: "ICANN should also consider mechanisms to create and maintain a centralized WHOIS database." Also see Jun-2012 BC comment on WHOIS Affirmation Review (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20on%20WHOIS%20RT%20Final%2…> ), where we endorsed privacy/proxy obligations: . Adopting agreed standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes . Conducting periodic due diligence checks on customer contact information; . Providing clear and unambiguous guidance on the rights and responsibilities of registered name holders, and how those should be managed in the Privacy / Proxy environment. And see our May-2013 comments on the new RAA (link <http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%2020…> ), where we proposed Relay and Reveal obligations and timelines for privacy/proxy services. Then I started with our 9-Aug draft comments and added discussion from 29-Aug BC member call. Attached is my 2-Sep draft, plus a redline comparing with the previous draft distributed (9-Aug). Please REPLY ALL with objections or comments before Thursday 5-Sep so we can meet the EWG deadline of 6-Sep. Looking forward to an informed and respectful discussions, so we can get our thoughts to the EWG while they are working on their final report for October publication. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

1 0

FOR REVIEW: BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report
by Steve DelBianco 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

As noted on our last 2 member calls, ICANN recently decided it didn't need uniform contracts for its UDRP/URS providers. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/providers/uniformity-process-19jul13…>) Uniform contracts were a core issue for us on our comments regarding new URS providers. (link<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-acdr-proposal-01mar13/msg00007.html> to BC comment) Phil Corwin has drafted a letter raising BC concerns and questions for ICANN leadership about this decision. (below and attached). There is no public comment deadline on this decision, since ICANN didn't allow for public comment at all. So we will take the full 14-day review period as our charter requires. (link<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) So before 17-Sep-2013, please REPLY ALL with comments regarding the attached text. If 10% of members object to the letter after Phil has replied to suggestions, we'll have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is majority support. Once approved, our Chair Elisa Cooper would send this letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair, where it would show as Correspondence. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence>) Thanks to Phil Corwin for taking the initiative, and for being ready to handle member questions and suggestions. Steve Vice chair for policy coordination From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:04 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Subject: Draft BC Letter on July UDRP Status Report Steve: I have finally completed a draft letter for BC member consideration. This follows up on my July 21st e-mail in which I closed as follows: In conclusion, I hereby request that BC leadership and members consider preparing and sending a communication to the CEO and the Board raising concerns about the timing of the release of this document, the lack of public comment or Board review prior to its release, and its potentially prejudicial impact on future community discussion of the UDRP. I leave whether that communication should also take issue with any of its substantive conclusions up to the BC membership. The draft letter does not take any substantive positions on the statements in the report – it just states the BC’s long-held position on the need for a standard and enforceable mechanism between ICANN and UDRP providers, and asks a series of questions about some of the statements in the Report. I certainly appreciate any feedback on the form and substance of the letter, as well as the proper way to proceed. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell

1 0

Minutes, transcript, MP3 recording: BC Members call on Aug. 29th, 2013
by Benedetta Rossi 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

Dear BC Members, Please find attached the minutes and transcript for the BC Members call which took place on Thursday, Aug. 29th, 2013 at 11 am EDT (3 pm UTC). The MP3 recording can be found here: <https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3> https://icann.box.com/shared/static/q8mu8iy21eiqqpvirq83.mp3 Please note these materials are also available on the BC Wiki's teleconference section: https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ Thank you, Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat bc-secretariat(a)icann.org <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home www.bizconst.org

1 0